Liberal Democrat

Sunday, September 30, 2012

I don't know if the Turkish Right Wing Party, thats definitely Democratic but not as Liberal as the European Union. But Liberal when it comes to Democracy, especially compared with other Middle Eastern countries, is the model for Arab States to look at when it comes to Democracy. But the Turkish Model overall, as it relates to Democracy, that includes Individual Freedom, Economic and. Social Freedom and other rights that you see in the United States is the way to go, where Freedom of Religion is respected but where the Federal Government is secular, thats what Tunisia, Libya and Egypt should be looking at.

There is this view amongst some Progressives that if you are part of the Working Class in America, that you. Are not elite enough, not sophisticated enough and not important enough for them and they look down on you. That Americans that bowl, drink non fancy beer, go to ballgames, watch Nascar and so fourth, things that tend to be popular with Working Class people, that you are not important and you should just shut. Up and let Progressive Elite run and control things, Progressives in some cases view these people as ignorant and even bigoted or even Redneck but use that word as an insult. And this is why Democrats like John Kerry and Mike Dukakis, haven't done very well with this group of voters, because Kerry and Dukakis. Were seen as elitists who didn't have a common touch and this is something that Barack Obama was able to break through in 2008 and now and connect with these voters.

It sounds like Norman Thomas who I’m familiar with the name and know he was a Socialist, but not very familiar with. But what I gather from this debate with Senator Barry Goldwater, was that Norman Thomas was arguing for democratic socialism. Not communism, or Marxism, but basically what’s common in Sweden. Private enterprise, mixed in with a very generous welfare state funded by high taxes, to help deal with income inequality and providing services they don’t trust the private sector to provide. Debating a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater, who argued for individual freedom pure and simple. That it’s not the business of government to try to control how people live. As long as they are not hurting anyone with what they are doing. And Socialists today, even though they prefer to be called Progressives, share a lot of the democratic socialist principles that Norman Thomas and other Socialists have been arguing for, for at least a hundred years now.

I think you would have a very hard time telling the differences between Norman Thomas back in the early 1960s when this debate was done and Senator Bernie Sanders today. That capitalism and private enterprise aren’t bad things and that they are even necessary. But they would argue that the problems with capitalism and private enterprise is when it comes to the distribution on wealth in America. That the resources in the country, meaning the money in the country, tends to be aimed at the top. With people at the top doing very well. And leaving a lot of people at the bottom with not much if anything. So what you need is a central or federal government to step in and provide the resources for people who need it who weren’t able to obtain it in the private economy.

So you need, well a big government, according to the Democratic Socialist, big enough to see that everyone is taken care of. Let people make a lot of money, but then tax them fairly high so people at the bottom don’t have to go without and live in poverty. Which is where the welfare state, or even superstate comes in. That you need a big government to make sure that everyone is taken care and doesn’t have to go without. But also to provide services that shouldn’t be for-profit and be trusted with the private sector. Things like education, health care, health insurance, child care, retirement, perhaps energy and banking as well. Plus and social insurance system for people who become unemployed, disabled, or are part of the working poor, or low-skilled and not working at all. This seems to me at least, what Gordon Thomas’s politics was about.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Yes but it won't happen overnight, what the GOP needs to do to remain a major Political Party into the future. Is go back to the future and be what they once were, the Party of Goldwater/Reagan, Fiscally and Economically Conservative Party but that was tolerant on Social Issues or even Social Conservatives in the classical. Sense that government wouldn't interfere with how people lived their lives, as long as they weren't hurting others with what they were doing. They need the Ron Paul's of the World, they need the Northeastern Republicans, like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, Charlie Bass, Judd Greg and may others. Members and former Members of Congress that grew up and were active in Republicans Politics in the Goldwater/Reagan era. The GOP hangs on and brings these people back, you would see Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal Independents come back to the GOP and even Libertarians would come back as well. But todays GOP can't last the way its currently structured, because the people who. Run the party, won't be around ten years from now or out of office, because the country is moving left on Social Issues, as we are becoming more tolerant as a country.

I'll be honest, I'm not a regular viewer of HBO's Newsroom, but I've seen a few scenes of it. And what I've gotten out of it, is the anchor of this Newscast, is an admitted Republican. A Conservative Republican even, but a Republican in how the Republican Party use to be. People that Neoconservatives meaning what the Tea Party has become, call these Republicans Rinos", Republicans in name only. People who they probably view as Moderate Democrats or in their minds (or lack of them) as even worse, than Moderate Democrats.

People like Richard, Lugar, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg even, that haven't challenged Scott Brown in Massachusetts. And that could be viewed as, well "Massachusetts, is a purely leftist Democratic state, so its better to have a Republican in name only up there", again in their minds only. But what the anchor of the Newsroom is saying, these so-called Rinos, are the real Republican Party. The Party that produced Abraham Lincoln, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, John Rhoades, Ron Reagan, Bob Dole, Howard Baker, Bob Michael and many other great Republican leaders. That this is how the GOP was strong and in power and didn't have an approval rating that was low as today's Congress.

I haven't heard an editorial from the Newsroom on what a "real Republican" is. But if we are actually going to label what "real Republicans" are and yes the Tea Party started this discussion and again I'm an unapologetic Liberal as well as Democrat and proud of, but I believe in having two strong political parties, at least two strong, but that's a different discussion, but as someone whose viewed the GOP past and present, this is what a "real Republican" is to me. Someone whose both an economic and fiscal Conservative, who believes in limited government, but not just limited government as it relates to the economy, but limited government period.

And limited government includes social policy. For example a "real Republican" seems to me wouldn't try to arrest someone for watching an adult movie or playing a role in one. Or trying to ban adult language in movies and music or wouldn't care if two men or two women involved in same-sex romances and are involved with each other or living together, adopting kids or even marrying each other. That this is not the business of the Federal Government, but that government is there to protect innocent people from the harm of others, not protect people from themselves.

"Real Republicans" believe in limited government, that government should only do for the people what the people can't do for themselves, or can't do for themselves as well. And that the best government, is the government thats closest to the people. "Real Republicans aren't Progressives, to put it mildly ,but they are Conservatives in the classical form. And when you have limited government, you keep taxes down only have regulations that are there to protect the innocent from the abuse of others.

And that states rights is about allowing the states to govern themselves and dealing with the issues that are close to home, as they see fit, as long as they are within the U.S. Constitution. And that the Federal Government's role is supportive. Rather than directive, but that limited government also applies to national security. That America has to be strong at home and abroad, but we also have to mind our own business.

The Republican Party that I just laid out, a Conservative Party, people who I would describe as "Real Republicans", is a party that use to exist, just as short as 20-30 years. But that party has died off and that started when the Religious Right came in about the mid and late 1970s and into power in the 1990s. And then combined themselves with Neoconservatives in the late 90s. And last decade and that's how the GOP went from being a Conservative Party to a Far-Right Neoconservative Party. At least at the grassroots level.Scientarist: HBO's The Newsroom- RINOS Are The Real Republicans

Friday, September 28, 2012

I'm sorta off to a bad start with this blog, because this is not the Mitt Romney GOP, its the Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachmann GOP. Mitt Romney is like the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran but is President of a different Theocracy, when it comes to today's GOP, that yes to a certain extent. Is about religion but most of all its about a faith in an ideology, where political beliefs outweigh facts, we believe we can cut taxes and raise spending by trillions of dollars at the same time and that. It will work, even though its never been successful before or since, we believe that Iraq has WMD, even though we don't know where they are and can't find them and thats just a couple of examples. My Iranian reference goes to the fact, that the President of Iran, is a position and man without power. The President is more of an advisory figure or ceremonial but the real power in that country resides with a dictator, the Supreme Leader, whose name I couldn't spell or pronounce, if it. Was right in front of me and someone else pronounced it correctly, so I'm not going to take a stab at it, besides I would probably stab myself by accident, ha ha!. Mitt Romney is the Leader of the GOP but unless he does what the Far Right of the base wants him to do, he doesn't get any support.

If I had to guess, I would say that the GOP Leadership, not including their Puppet in Chief Mitt Romney. Have concluded that Mitt is not going to win, that his campaign is already DOA and that its just a matter of how much he's going to lose by and that they are giving him one more opportunity. To look like he can actually win, which is Wednesday night, that if there's no change in the election or Mitt bombs in the debate, that they are going to pull their resources out of the Romney Campaign. And concentrate on Congress, mostly saving the Republican House, especially if Mitt loses in an Electoral Landslide, because I don't believe they think Mitch McConnell can win back. The Senate with Mitt Romney losing, that they are going to cut their losses and focus on the House and it will just be matter of if Mitt makes that same calculation, that instead on focusing on. The Presidential Election, he'll instead spend campaigning for House and Senate Republicans, similar to what Bob Dole did in 1996 but we'll see.

Wow the second time in the last two weeks I'm sorta standing up for Mitt Romney but its true, Mitt is 20-30. Years past his time as far as the Republican Party, the GOP as it stands today is not the GOP that Mitt grew up with. And was a member of as a young man and as an early middle age man and someone who was finally elected to Public Office in his mid fifties in 2002. This is now a Far Right party that sees Americans of today as Un American, if they don't look at the World the way they do and people who don't belong. In America, its no longer a big tent party, that can win all across the country but is essentially made up of people, who are aren't accustomed to being with people who aren't from their community and see these people. As Un American and Mitt finds himself having to try to appease to these people, while looking sane and tolerant to the rest of the country and its just something that can be done. Because the fringe he needs to vote for him, are completely different from the rest of the country and its sort of an either-or proposition. You can't please both.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

I really would like to know what Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, Ron Reagan, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, assuming he's still alive somewhere. And what the hell, Dick Nixon even would think of today's Republican Party, a Party that actually has a pretty good history, that freed the African Slaves. Won the Civil War ended corporate monopolies and started regulating them, that gave us a National Highway System and if you think about it and just be real, gave us Civil Rights in the 1960s. Those laws don't happen without Congressional Republicans, more Republicans in Congress voted for those laws them Democrats or its about 50%, this is the party that opened up China and Russia. That ended those Socialist size Tax Rates in the 1980s, that ranged somewhere between 20-70%, that presided over the ending of the Cold War, how much credit President Reagan gets for that. Is a different discussion but it happened under his watch, what would these men that I mention, think about a party that coined the term, I don't want Big Government in my wallets or bedrooms. Think about a party that today wants Federal Agents tucking people in at night, to make sure no one is having fun, doing things they claim to be immoral. And wants to raise taxes on the Middle Class to pay for Tax Cuts for the wealthy.

I have a feeling what President Reagan would say, I've been to Russia and I know what Communists look like. I never thought I would seem them in power in America, thats not why we spend all of those tears, money and blood to stop and today's GOP looks like the Commies we defeated. Back in the day, Senator Goldwater would probably think he's in a different country and that this new country has borrowed our Constitution but they just aren't enforcing it. President Nixon would say something like, since when have Republicans become against clean air, President Ford might say, what happened to. The Conservative Republicans, I don't see many around anymore, Leader Dole might say, these are, the people I campaigned for in the South to get. Elected and reelected, I want a refund and then, If he ever saw that money, he would dedicate it to the World War II Memorial, the adults have left the building in the GOP and have never. Come back and this is what it looks like, when you leave the children in charge.

A party that use to be about Individual Freedom and not just Economic and Religious Freedom but Individual Freedom. And there's a difference, as well as Fiscal Responsibility, is now a party that believes everything should be on the table when it comes to Deficit Reduction, except for things. That could cost us politically, the military, Social Security and Medicare, the big free, a party that use to believe that Big Government is too big, is now a party that believes that. Big Government is too small and the problem with America, is Americans and they should be punished, they have become a party thats lacking in adult Leadership.

Paul Ryan is a loser in swing States period, lets just lay it out there, he hasn't given Mitt Romney anything as. Far as closing the President Obama's lead, they are actually down more now and the three States that Representative Ryan was suppose to help Mitt, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. Are all headed for President Obama, oh did I mention that Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin and went to college in Ohio and has a Middle Class background.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

For all of the Socialists out there or perhaps people who prefer to call yourselves Progressives. But with strong Socialist, lets say tendencies, you have at least two candidates to choose from. The most well known of the two would be Jill Stein, who I kinda respect from the Green Party and Roseanne Barr of the Justice Party. But either one of them will probably be lucky to get 1% of the vote and even with all of these third party Progressives out there, President Obama is still likely. To get reelected at this point, with North of 50% of the vote and North of 300 Electoral Votes, unless we see some type of game change in the next forty days. Thats just the way it is, which is fine with me, part of that has to do with the monopoly that Democrats and Republicans have. On our Political System, where we really only have two choices as far as who could win the election but part of that is the weakness of the Progressive Movement, not so much at least in this. Case their ideas or members but the fact that they are so spread out and end up taking votes from each other, when what they need instead is one Progressive Party and they could even call it that. Or the Socialist Party, with an ideology thats common in lets say Europe rather then Cuba.

American Progressives have the voice and at least an economic message that can communicate to millions. Of Americans in this country, that could be a factor in American Politics, with an economic message that communicates to Middle Class Americans, that we are here on your side fighting for you and we are not here to take away your business or property but to help you have some. Security in your life and protect you from predators in the economy that would take away everything that you've worked for, we aren't going to take it away from you and we aren't going to let. Predators do it either but we'll protect you from people like this so you can live as successful as a life as you make for yourself and provide a Safety Net for you when you need it. They don't have a party that believes in Economic Progressivism, they don't get that from Democrats anymore. At least the Democratic Leadership and I'm not faulting Democrats for this, we are run by Liberals and Moderate Liberals and we are simply different.

Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr should be running on the same ticket and leading the Progressive/Socialist Party. Or whatever they would call it, rather then competing with each other, to get at best 5% of the vote but since they are running for separate Progressive Parties. They end up taking votes away from each other instead and is something that Progressives need to think about in the future. If they ever want to get into power.

Probably the same reason why the craziest Atheists who want to outlaw religion, because they are crazy and don't understand the U.S. Constitution. If you don't want to hear about someone, stop talking about them and you'll hear less. I like this article in the AlterNet, (perhaps the only article I've ever liked by the AlterNet) because Valerie Tarico takes on fundamentalists from all religions. Not just Evangelical Christians, which is what today's so-called Progressives (the Far-Left really) only focus on. "Christian-Conservatives, are evil bigots, because they put down women and gays. Conservative-Muslims, are good decent people, who are simply misunderstood. And when they do and say bad things, it's America's fault." Which is generally the attitude that you get from the Far-Left. Which is what the AlterNet is, a social democratic if not socialist publication on the Far-Left. But with what you get with Valerie Tarico, is religious fundamentalism is bad. Even it comes from non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant males.

If religious fundamentalism and bigotry that comes from religious fundamentalism, is a bad thing like gays aren't real humans, or are mentally handicapped, or women's place is in the home, etc, then religious fundamentalism is bad period. Doesn't matter the religion, the race, ethnicity, or color of the people. If you're going to put down the Christian-Right when one of their members murders a man simply because he thought that guy was gay, because he had a feminine voice and demeanor, then you can't defend that sam behavior when it happens in Saudi Arabia. Where gays are put to death by their own Islamic government. This shouldn't be about race, ethnicity, color, or a specific religion. Unless you're simply bigoted about one race, ethnic, or religious group. To coin a phrase from the great movie about Watergate All The President's Men, "follow the money." Or in this case follow the bigotry. When the Christian-Right behaves badly, sure! Go after them, but when Islamists behave badly, don't call people who criticize that behavior bigots simply for criticizing bad behavior.

Stupid people, unfortunately come in all shapes, sizes, colors, races, ethnicities, religions and genders. Which makes them harder to deal with, because they can hit you at anytime from anyone. No race, ethnicity, religion or gender, has a monopoly on stupidity and bigotry. Which is too bad, because it would be easier to deal with and eliminate. "Hey, now that we know what all stupid look like, lets just focus on them and put the bigoted morons away." You can't do that with a mental disease like stupidity, simply because we don't have enough prison and hospital space to house all of those morons. And given these facts when you just concentrate on the bigots from one religion and race of people, while you ignore the bigots from another religion which just happens to be the largest religion in the world, being Islam, you give away get out of jail free cards to a lot of people. Who are just as bigoted as the Christian-Conservatives you don't like. Which is stupid in itself.HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Fighting Fundamentalism

One of the best variety comedy shows of all-time, sort of like a half-hour Saturday Night Live. Speaking of SNL, SNL gets a lot of credit for being such an original variety skit-comedy show that other shows have tried to follow and make their own versions of it. And all of that is true, but Carol Burnett, was essentially the same thing, but came out 6-7 years earlier in the late 1960s, instead of 1975 with SNL and was on CBS instead of NBC. And you could make a case that Carol Burnett herself and her show with his her great cast and writers, inspired shows like Saturday Night Live and later In Living Color, MADD-TV and other skit comedy shows. Because of how good it was, how original it was, the topics it covered. That it wasn't about sending a political, or cultural message, but about making fun of everyday American life.

The Carol Burnett Show, covered and had everything and they weren't about politics at least in the sense they were trying to push some political message. It was simply about entertainment and what was going on in America at the time especially as it related to pop culture. And always looking for the funny side of everything they covered. They mad fun of politicians, movies, TV shows, actors, musicians, weren't worried about political correctness and pleasing everybody. But great comedians who all had similar sense of humors, great chemistry, who liked each other loved working with each other. And in that sense at least it reminds me of Seinfeld and was better than Saturday Night Live, that generally looks at politics from a political slant. Carol Burnett, was simply about making people laugh and doing it in a classy way and having a great time at it.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

No offense to Thom Hartmann but Progressives don't have a great track record, at least not lately when. It comes to freedom, Progressives at least lately seem to have the idea, that freedom is the freedom for people to have to take care of themselves, because government would do that for us, at of. Course at our own expense, the freedom to not have to decide how much healthcare we need and who to pay to cover us, the freedom to not have to save for retirement, the freedom from having to listen. To nasty language, the freedom to not get unhealthy, because junk food, soft drinks, perhaps even tobacco and alcohol would not be available, I know some Progressives that believe that. Marijuana should remain illegal, even though marijuana legalization is broadly supported by Leftists, Liberals and Progressives alike and Progressives have even more weakness's when it comes to. Freedom or what I would call lack of freedom, in areas of how we can spend our own money, things like gambling and other forms of entertainment that they may consider insulting or bigoted. This is not freedom but its a lack of freedom, lately the Progressive idea of freedom, is for the people to have the freedom to not have to take Personal Responsibility with their own lives. To not have to take care of ourselves, because government is going to do that for us at our expense.

I could spend a whole blog laying out where Neoconservatives, where the far right comes up short when. It comes to freedom and they may even be worse then the far left but Thom Hartmann gave his critique about the right, so I'm going to right the counter critique, not to speak up for. Neoconservatives but just to point out the Progressives have weakness's here and its a little hard to here someone who believes that government has a role in preventing people from living. Unhealthy and actually be able to control what we eat, to try to ban things that are currently legal, because these foods and drinks are unhealthy, because of the hypocrisy in it. What freedom is, is the ability for people to have choices in how they live their lives and the ability to live their own. Lives as long as they aren't taking other peoples freedom away from them, because of how they live their lives. Not protecting people from making bad decisions with their own lives.

The problem with Mitt Romney attacking President Obama on Foreign Policy, is that he's trying to beat the President at his own game. He's trying to beat him in an area thats a weakness for himself and that generally doesn't work, so what he does is criticize him, where his charges are accurate or not. And then when asked what he would do instead, he either only answers in sound bites or says things that makes him sound like President Bush and that tells voters. Wait didn't we do that before and look where that got us. Mitt needs to get back on the economy and stay there and layout a plan. That will generate Economic and Job Growth, that sounds better then what President Obama wants to do and only talk Foreign Policy, when it comes up or when he can develop his own Foreign Policy. And not borrow ideas from Neoconservatives.

But this is just a start and we need to cut another 4T$ from the National Debt, we are not going to be able to do that. With non entitlement Discretionary Spending alone but we can't get there by gutting defense or raising taxes, including across the board, its going to take a package of things to finish the job.

The answer is yes and here's why, remember why if you even know the answer to this of then Senator Jack Kennedy. Even though he competed for Adlai Stevenson's VP slot and lost but why the way that helped him, because Adlai was going to lose overwhelmingly anyway and since Jack Kennedy didn't run with him. He couldn't be blamed for Adlai losing as badly as he did and also remember, again if you know the answer to this of what. Representative Paul Ryan's reputation in Congress was before he was selected to be Mitt's VP Nominee, a straight shooter and someone who understood economics and the Federal Budget very well. But what has he been doing the last couple months, defending his record, as well as statements that he's made. About President Obama's record and called out on false statements he's made about both, this election was. Tied in early August when Mitt chose Paul and now the President has a clear lead, including leads in all of the battleground States, Paul has done nothing for Mitt as far as taking a lead in the election and. Giving him momentum, they are now down in Paul's home State of Wisconsin and the State where Paul Ryan went to college in Ohio and Paul was suppose to be able to help Mitt in both States.

As this election gets into the last couple of weeks or so, if it still looks like Mitt Romney is going to lose and perhaps lose big. Paul Ryan needs to think about breaking from Mitt, not dropping out but spend that time rebuilding his reputation and preparing for the future, perhaps as Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, instead of Chairman, if Mitt loses an electoral landslide and Democrats take back the House. But stop defending Mitt and attacking the President with false statements and concentrate on rebuilding his reputation, if he wants a future in the GOP.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Free Speech should always be protected whether its nice or mean, easy to hear, or hard to but necessary to listen to, so people are educated. Thats what it means to live in a Liberal Democracy and something that separates us from perhaps every other Democracy in the World.

This is the perfect subject to blog about for me, because it goes right up my ally, in what Liberal Democracy and Liberalism is to me. What it means to be a Liberal and why I'm a Liberal, Individual Freedom, the ability for people and we are talking about adults, juveniles has less Freedom under law. And thats a good thing but the Freedom for free adults to live their own lives, until they take the Freedom of innocent people to live their own lives away. Thats what Freedom is and the number one job of government, if not only job of government is protect the Individual Freedom of free adults. And to expand the Freedom for people who deserve it but don't have it, because they simply don't have the Freedom to live their own lives, because they are dependent on Public Assistance to survive. That we are all judge at least under law, as individuals and not members of groups, what Dr. Martin King said, by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin and that includes. All Americans whether they are minority or majority and thats where I come down and covers everything from Economic Freedom, where we would have the Freedom to be as successful in life. Based on our production an qualifications, as well as Personal Freedom, where again we have the Freedom to live our own lives.

What I just wrote I believe would offend just about every Progressive and Neoconservative, who reads it. And I'm not trying to sound partisan here but Progressives and Neoconservatives simply have a more Statist approach when it comes to individuals, that government main job is to. Look after and protect people even from themselves and its the job of government to prevent people from making what they call mistakes, even if that means protecting people from themselves. Progressives as it relates to living a healthy lifestyle, controlling what we can eat and drink, as we've seen up in New York and Neoconservatives at it relates to issues like pornography. And homosexuality and unfortunately many others, they have different approaches but their goals are the same, use government to protect the people, not just the innocent from the guilty but the innocent even. From themselves at times so America is safe as possible.

If Progressives and Neoconservatives had their way, America would be at least the goal would be for America. To be a very safe and dull country, where Americans wouldn't be allowed to make mistakes, because our Freedom would be so limited, where Uncle Sam would have a lot of authority. In the country to protect Americans from themselves, thats not what Freedom is and what it means to live in a Liberal Democracy. Liberal Democracy, which is really what Liberalism is about, is the Freedom to even make mistakes, as long as your mistakes don't hurt innocent people.

The Romney Budget is essentially the Ryan Budget but the way to save the Safety Net, especially Medicaid. Medicare, Social Security and so fourth, is not by gutting them but making them real Welfare Insurance Programs, only intended for the people who need them, Self Financed, so they don't put so much pressure. On the rest of the Federal Budget, including the National Debt and turning them over to the States to run, along with reforming the Defense Budget and Tax Code, there's the deficit vanishing and we can finally. Start paying down the National Debt, once we obtain some real sustaining Economic Growth.

The 2012 Presidential Election is partly a referendum on President Bush, because Democrats have successfully. Linked Republicans with the Bush Years, because a lot of these Republicans were with President Bush and supported his policies and Republicans haven't taken it seriously enough and haven't been. Able to distinguish themselves from the Bush Administration, their policies look very similar from what came from President Bush and the GOP has been paying a price for it and Mitt Romney probably won't. Recover from it, which is why Senate Democrats will probably retain the Senate and why I believe the House will be in play as well. But the other problem that Republicans have is that Democrats and President Obama have also been successful in making this election a choice, which is what the convention was about. And saying this didn't work and why we are here today, this is what we have been doing and this is what we'll do in the future.

Men who needs them? A Far-Left pipe dream where men are not even welcome, or where masculinity disappears, or where all men are essentially gay. I find it ironic that people on the Far-Left who are so anti-male man-haters, tend to be somewhat dykish even and have masculine characteristics themselves. Even though they claim to be anti-masculinity. They see football, boxing, interest in cars, tools, gambling, checking out attractive women and I could go on, but I have other things I would like to accomplish in my life, but they see all of these activities as somehow sexist. Even though a lot of American women, straight even, like football, boxing, cars, tools, gambling, etc and are some of the most feminine, beautiful and sexy women you’ll ever see.

It is not so much masculinity that the man-hating sexist Far-Left doesn’t like. Well they don’t like masculinity, but it’s male masculinity and male heterosexuality that they don’t like. But if women are a Dyke, no problem, because she’s just being who she was born as. According to Socialists on the Far-Left who don’t like masculinity when it comes from straight men. You’ll never see straight men, or women who are to the right of Socialists, democratic or otherwise, which is only most of the world, try to put down female femininity. Because we love women, especially straight women. At least coming from a straight man. We love who they are and how versatile that they are. That they’re cute, beautiful, well-built, funny, but they’ll also stand up for themselves and watch sports with the guys.

There straight women who like sports and there are straight men such as myself, who like soap operas. If they’re funny, well-written, well-done and seem to have some broader point other than, ‘who is Jake going to stab in the back now.’ Or whoever the character is. Without straight men and yes we tend to be masculine which is a common characteristic about straight men and something that straight women tend to like about us, we would have a country of gay men and overly adorable and feminine straight women who never grow up. We would be a national day care center and kindergarten class. With no one to fix the cars when they break down, police the streets, defend the country and so-forth. Because all the men would be makeup artists, or clothing designers. Well I guess the dykes could handle the male responsibilities. It would be a strange universe where everyone who enters who use to live on Planet Earth would think they drank too much, or got too high the night before.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

If you read my blog on a regular basis, you know I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney and don't go out of my way. To speak up for him and for the most part I critique him, because he says a lot of strange things, that to me makes him unqualified to be President of the United States, because it goes. To his lack of Leadership skills, he seems to feel the need to have everyone he feels he needs to vote for him, have those people like him and takes positions to get their support. Rather then just telling people what he believes and why he would be a better President then President Obama. But having said all of that, he has a point when it comes to Obama Voters and the Entitlement Society, a block of Progressive/Socialists people on the far left in America, that believe. Its governments job to take care of people who are unfortunate, who can't survive on their own, people who claim not to be not religious, have these strong Christian Values, thats its the job. Of people to feed the hungry, clothe the clothless, house the homeless, cure the sick and the people who are suppose to do all of these good works, are of course the government at Tax Payers expense.

These block of voters who are a fairly diverse group of people, have this notion that its governments job. To look after and take care of people, that people for the simple fact of being born, are entitled to enough quality food, an adequate home, enough clothes, an education. Healthcare, Health Insurance, a job, pension and so fourth most of the things that most of the country has to work for to actually obtain in society and even though none of these things. Are guaranteed for anyone in the US Constitution, they believe that everyone is entitled to them, thats simply not how government works, we do have a Safety Net in America. Thats funded by people who work and pay taxes, to help provide for the less fortunate but its not in the Constitution that we have to provide these things for the less fortunate amongst us. We do these things, because we've chosen to as a country and we are compassionate, not because we have to. The Safety Net could simply be eliminated by law, through statue.

The number one and perhaps only role of government is to protect our freedom and thats freedom across. The board, until we lose it by hurting innocent people and for the people who don't have freedom, lack the skills to take care of themselves, we empower them to get those skills, so. They can have the Economic Freedom that the rest of the country has, not to take care of them and expect nothing from them for the rest of their lives. But while we are assisting them in the short term, we empower them so they can be free from Public Assistance as well.

Liberals have won the Culture War, from everything to Civil Liberties, Free Speech, including Hate Speech. To privacy, to Civil Rights and its not how Conservatives have lost this war, because real Conservatives believe in similar things but the far right, Neoconservatives who are more Statist on some of these. Issues, as well as Progressives on some of them, have lost.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Sure why not go out of your way to appease the Cuban American vote in Florida, that generally votes Republican anyway. If the Romney/Ryan Campaign really has to remind Cuban Floridians that they are with them on Cuba, then they really are in trouble in Florida, a State where they are currently. Trailing and might have to win to win the White House.

Republicans in Americans assuming they are still capable of learning, probably not a safe bet at this point. Should look at the British model when it comes to Austerity Economics and look at how bad the UK Economy is right now and perhaps reconsider if thats the model they want to push in the. United States that has an economy thats much better off then Britain's right now.

What Progressives gotta remember about Gary Johnson, is that even though he's with them on marijuana and Civil Liberties. He's not one of them, he doesn't believe in Big Government at al, he doesn't want an expansive Federal Government but to make it a lot smaller then it is today across the board. He's not an Economic Progressive or a Progressive at all.

Someone once asked a famous bank robber why you do rob banks and the bank robber replied, because thats where the money is. If someone were to ask why do we have to make saving in entitlements and defense and the Tax Code, to get the debt and deficit under control, same answer to the first question. Because thats where the money is and anyone on the right or left who disagrees, doesn't understand this issue, doesn't take it seriously. Or is not a strong enough Leader to take on the Special Interests that would be affected by these savings.

Blue Collar Caucasians have to pay the bills as well and when they are struggling, like now and the GOP isn't offering a message thats appealing to them. And its all about how to give their employers more Tax Breaks, including incentives to ship jobs oversees, these voters look somewhere else. Thats how Barack Obama won Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida in 2008 and why he'll probably win those State. Again in 2012.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

There's not a lot I respect about Occupy Wall Street currently. They started off as a legitimate movement of Socialists seeking progressive change that was going to take on Wall Street because of the bailouts that they got in 2008-09 after their bad behavior that led to the Great Recession. While the rest of the country got austerity for their hard work ( as so-called Progressives see it ) and early on they were pushing issues as what I would call their alternative agenda to what we see from.

How about a left-wing Tea Party today that was about universal higher education and forgive the debt of students and homeowners who were drowning in debt, to today they look like a bunch of Anarchists. Who send a lot of their members to jail when they get together and people like that don't tend to get taken seriously by Americans as a whole and tend to get written off as troublemakers. But going forward if OWS wants to be taken seriously as a social-democratic movement, they are going to have to find a way to communicate to people who aren't as far to the left of them politically. And I'm not talking about running to the middle or even left of center but an agenda that represents their agenda. That they can show the rest of the country that they can get behind it, because it makes sense and is not crazy.

Ever since really the mid and late 1960s, American so-called Progressives ( Socialists, really )whether they view themselves as Progressive or Democratic Socialists, have been struggling to build on the New Deal and Great Society. And even though we've had three Democratic President's since LBJ, including President Obama, they haven't had a President which is really what you need to pass an agenda like this. Just like you need a Conservative as President to pass a conservative agenda. Democratic Socialists haven't had that one President who is behind what they want to do, who believes in social democracy or democratic socialism. Who has a philosophy that's built around what can government do for the people, instead the Democrats who are Liberals who believe in private enterprise, fiscal responsibility. That there's a limit to the positive good that government can do for it's people. And Democratic Socialists have had a hard time staying relevant in this period as well.

Democratic Socialists have been pushing Single Payer Medicare For All, government health insurance for the whole country. But haven't had any success at the Federal level with limited success at the state level. Not a lot of Americans crazy about losing the health insurance they already have and like, to be forced to take Medicare as a replacement, Vermont and California might go the other way though. But higher education, something that most of the country can't afford on their own, you are talking about paying off a small house in the country or a condo in four years. Which is what it costs to pay for higher education but roughly 85% of the country has health insurance and are able to pay for it in someway. But higher education is an issue that affects the whole country and anybody who has kids or is thinking about having kids this is an issue they have to deal with.

What I believe Democratic Socialists should be doing going forward, is to offer an economic agenda that a lot of the country can get behind. Because it makes sense and doesn't sound crazy, it doesn't sound like some government takeover or something but instead designed to empower people to solve their own problems.

These are some of the issue that Jill Stein the Green Party presidential nominee has been pushing, things like a living wage that empowers workers without hurting employers.

Expanding job training for unemployed workers, empowering them to go back to school, eliminating tax incentives that send jobs oversees and encouraging companies to keep jobs at home.

And yes universal higher education a system that funds college for everyone that can't afford it on their own. Where all qualified students in America could go to college, whether they can afford it on their own or not and not be drowning in debt before or after they finish college.

This is how Socialists who prefer to be Progressives, could have more clout in America. I'm not saying they should abandoned their agenda that's more socialist and speaks to a much smaller faction of the country. But a living wage, universal higher education, student and homeowner debt forgiveness, job training, infrastructure investment, is an agenda that would reach a much larger percentage of the country and make Democratic Socialists real players in American politics again.

Did Conservative Intellectualism die when Bill Buckley died a few years back, because since he has moved on. So has the Republican Party and the Right Wing that use to be about being anti Big Government, that only expanded Big Government under the Bush Administration and even though they've been. Trying to get government out of the economy ever since President Bush left office, they have become more Statist and Neoconservative everywhere else on Social Issues and National Security.

At risk of sounding classist or like a Culture Bigot, Guns and Jesus plays well in Rural America, especially for Republicans. But Caucasians as a whole are more politically diverse then that, I'm an example of that myself.

Wow I actually agree with the AlterNet on something, Congressional Republicans need to be worried about Mitt Romney and I wouldn't get to close to Paul Ryan either. Who thanks to Mitt will see his stock go down, the Senate now leans Democratic thanks to Senate GOP Candidates and Mitt and Mitt might put the House back in play for Democrats as well.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

I've been writing a lot lately about today's GOP, again as I'm going to call it because today's Republicans. In a lot of cases not everyone as I pointed out last night but a lot of them are only Republicans in name only, people who aren't crazy about Republicanism or even Democracy. If it gets in the way with their agenda, which is appealing to the Far Right that now runs the GOP. Today and I'm going to try to sound original here but I've been blogging a lot about this lately, so I'll do what. I cam but the thing is I've been hearing a lot of Constructive Criticism of today's GOP, from non Republicans lately, who actually like and still respect some Republicans, such as I and even work with them from time to time. But are just different ideologically and are not always able to work together obviously. Even from people like Senator Sherrod Brown a Progressive Democrat, who I'm sure has one of the farthest left records in Congress but at the end of the day is not a nut. And is also a legislature and is reasonable, who does have a record of working with Republicans, even with people like Senator Tom Coburn or Dr. No, he's a real life doctor, who probably. Has one of the farthest right records in Congress but is someone that people can work with.

What Senator Brown I'm guessing sees today someone who I believe is in his late 50s, from what I've read about him. Is someone who may remember the last years of the Eisenhower Presidency, started High School back in Ohio. During the Nixon Presidency, was already an adult by the time Gerry Ford became President, Reagan, Bush and so fourth. Grew up with an idea of what Republicans were, that this was the anti Big Government Party that use to be home to Libertarians. Government shouldn't be interfering with how Americans live their lives, until they interfere with how other Americans live their lives. That Economic Freedom is good and Socialism is bad and so fourth, that we have to be strong at home and abroad, that government closest to the people. Is the best government, that we need to be Fiscally Responsible and not run up huge debt and deficits. Senator Brown I'm sure doesn't agree with a lot of these things but probably sees them as legitimate policies, that a responsible party would believe in.

That GOP of then is basically dead and buried, Libertarians now have a Libertarian Party where, thirty years ago. The GOP would've been a nice fit for them but today freedom is not what the GOP is concern with but how Americans should live their lives, that they should live them the right way. According to Neoconservative Republicans, these are just some of the differences between the GOP that Sherrod Brown grew up with and the GOP of today.

Mitt Romney taking another stab at the Far Right by saying he would love any of his grandchildren that were gay. I deeply respect and agree with his position but I don't think it does him much good politically, since he needs the votes of Mental Patients to get elected President but we'll see.

Looks like Mitt Romney is on a who can I offend next tour, yesterday it was 47% of the country. Today it was Tea Party Neoconservatives on Illegal Immigration, the way he's going whose going to be left to vote for Mitt.

A lot of these law enforcement shows about the justice system, all though most of them are entertaining, only focus on a small percentage of the crimes. But again we are talking about entertainment here. Who would want to watch a show that’s about shoplifting, or traffic stops, drunk driving an so-forth. People need to be able to differentiate between reality and entertainment and many times they are not the same thing. But even if the law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it is that it a lot about drug crimes and drug offenders and that a lot of these supposed crimes happen in African-American communities in urban areas, these shows would be accused of racism. For always highlighting young African-American men as suspects and criminals.

If these law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it really is, that it is basically about low-level felonies like shoplifting and misdemeanors, who would watch? Again I get back to the entertainment factor here. A lot of these shows as far as the crimes and how the detectives and prosecutors do their jobs even though they aren’t completely accurate, are at least realistic. As professionals in the criminal justice system will tell you. And even though they do tend to concentrate on a low percentage of crimes that are committed in America, they tend to do a good and accurate job. And they are realistic in the sense that crimes in America are committed by all Americans as far as ethnicity and race. And they don’t focus on one racial, or ethnic group in America.

Again to go back to Hollywood and reality it’s not the job of Hollywood to show exactly what life if like and the subjects that they cover. There job is to be entertaining and hopefully realistic. Smart viewers want both, but unfortunately for lot of Americans they simply want to be entertained when they are watching TV. And even if these shows don’t show the criminal justice system for exactly what it is, again its Hollywood and if you’re a smart person you’re going to anyway how realistic the show is anyway by how informed you are about how the country works. And how much you know about current affairs in America including criminal justice, or whatever the issue is.

Subscribe To FRS FreeStates

Total Page Views of FRS FreeStates

Contact Derik Schneider About FRS FreeStates

Follow Me On Facebook

About Me

I'm an easy going guy who is never afraid to crack a joke. I'm almost always in a good mood, I believe the happier you are the better off you'll be & the longer you'll live. I believe in living life rather than being alive. Very hard to get me down. I tease because I care. I try to find humor in everything & everyone that I see. I tease anyone that I respect, care about, like, or love. If I'm not joking around with you, or teasing you, it is because I don't know you well, don't like you or you don't mean a whole hell of a lot to me.

I blog about a lot of different things, because I have a lot of different interests and knowledgeable about a lot of those areas. How knowledgeable I am, you can decide that for yourself by checking out my blog. And we can talk about what is what in an adult professional manner. And perhaps even learn things from each other that we didn't know going in.